execute_hedged_trade

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavior. It mentions risk gating but gives no concrete details about what gates or rejects a trade, how overrideApproved interacts with gating, whether an order is actually placed, or what side effects or failure modes exist. This is especially significant for a trade-execution tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It briefly states what the tool does and why. It loses a point only because the phrase 'pre-trade risk sentinel gating' is jargon-heavy and compresses a lot of unexplained behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a potentially irreversible financial action with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description omits crucial context: what happens when risk gating blocks, how override works, and what the caller should expect after execution. The provided schema covers parameters but not the behavioral context needed to invoke it safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds no specific parameter-level semantics beyond the general notion of risk gating, which is appropriately at the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's core function: routing a trade with pre-trade risk sentinel gating. It also conveys the intended outcome (prevent liquidation cascades, preserve capital), and the verb 'routes' distinguishes this execution tool from the risk-evaluation and parsing siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'pre-trade risk sentinel gating' implies this is the execution step after risk evaluation, and the riskScore parameter references evaluate_trade_risk. However, the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.